|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2017 0:22:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2017 0:24:34 GMT
Actually, not even close to the top 1,000 Code.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2017 0:54:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2017 1:04:00 GMT
Its rubbish, it's only possible to say how likely a year is to have been warmer then other particular years, but impossible to be definitive, But then I'm sure you know that Code! Ok, if you say so but it seems, however, temps can be measured and compared? The temperatures that were observed and recorded decades ago in the 1930's have been 'corrected' for pretend possible errors these adjustments have a singular property they always reduce temperatures in the past and increase recent temperatures. If the USCRN (Climate reference network) is used 2016 is not the 'warmest' at all. Furthermore, if corrections were to be made for enthalpy then the warming would be explained by the slight drop in humidity I suspect this hooplah will carry on until things are definitively proven one way or another. But what is certain is that the temperatures are not catastrophic and still have not reached the level of the Medieval warm period.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 19, 2017 6:26:57 GMT
Its all about margins of error?? Temp record relys on '000s of readings from around the world, there is an accepted 'creap' of inaccuracy in this. The issue is when your margin of error is larger then the change in the figure... It is possible to calculate a 0.07% rise, but it may be higher or lower then this. Clever people can work out the odds.....I can't 😶 so you think there is a conspiracy? No, there is no conspiracy in fact and statistics. The confusion comes from journalism, how these facts and stats are reported. It is not possible to claim in a headline 2016 warmest ever....there is a chance it may be warmer then other years, there is a chance it may be cooler. Our measurement system is not accurate enough to know for sure....
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Jan 19, 2017 11:47:09 GMT
www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/2016-record-breaking-year-for-global-temperatureMatO seem pretty sure it's another bona fide record year? I'm wondering just how shy of that record temps this year will fall? With Sea ice currently at an all time record low there's a lot of heat able to soak into the system that should have been reflected safely back into space. I fear the same will happen up north come melt season . So Spring will see the Southern ocean put that heat back into the system just in time for the 'Nino', folk are now talking about, to form and then we'll see the same again as the Arctic Ocean attempts to shed its heat come September...... i just hope the Dimming does not take another drop over the year so as to compound things!
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2017 12:13:20 GMT
www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/2017/2016-record-breaking-year-for-global-temperatureMatO seem pretty sure it's another bona fide record year? I'm wondering just how shy of that record temps this year will fall? With Sea ice currently at an all time record low there's a lot of heat able to soak into the system that should have been reflected safely back into space. I fear the same will happen up north come melt season . So Spring will see the Southern ocean put that heat back into the system just in time for the 'Nino', folk are now talking about, to form and then we'll see the same again as the Arctic Ocean attempts to shed its heat come September...... i just hope the Dimming does not take another drop over the year so as to compound things! So against the rules of maths - the Met Office averages an intensive variable 'atmospheric temperature' then guesses what the atmospheric temperatures were at the poles (not served by satellite or ground based temperature observations) and with no error bars claims that 2016 was the hottest year evah!! by a whole one hundredth of a degree? There are so many undergraduate level mistakes it is difficult to know where to start. But employing a metrologist (that is someone who studies measurement and metrics) would be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 19, 2017 12:24:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 19, 2017 13:54:22 GMT
It truly is bizarre.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 19, 2017 18:47:50 GMT
I'd call them lunatics but that's based on a luner cycle, these claims are made annually, so that would make them annustics? ?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 19, 2017 23:22:00 GMT
I'd call them lunatics but that's based on a luner cycle, these claims are made annually, so that would make them annustics? ? I feel certain that, somewhere on this Earth, in one or more media organisations, the "hottest ever" claim is produced ..... DAILY I'm sure John Crook Cook and Dana Nutticelli Nuccitelli have the figures.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 20, 2017 0:05:23 GMT
I'd call them lunatics but that's based on a luner cycle, these claims are made annually, so that would make them annustics? ? I feel certain that, somewhere on this Earth, in one or more media organisations, the "hottest ever" claim is produced ..... DAILY I'm sure John Crook Cook and Dana Nutticelli Nuccitelli have the figures.It's probably not their waist lines, right?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jan 20, 2017 0:11:07 GMT
MB, go watch TV or nail the dog down in case of gales.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Feb 7, 2017 16:54:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 7, 2017 18:10:56 GMT
Nifty program! Early spring, later fall provided the fuel in 2016. Looks like the Arctic.
|
|